And from this substance-less, unconsciously based (nothingness) experience comes something that is known (conscious) and impactful (Van Eenwyk, 1997, p. 69):
“Drawing on the language of chaos theory, . . . symbols resemble manifolds. That is, they take us from the known to the unknown and back again. We often experience this as does an orbit that passes through a manifold and back. We go from stability to instability and hopefully—back again. In this case, stability refers to consciousness and the ordering capacities of the ego. Instability refers to the unconscious and its crazy-making jumbling up of conscious categories. Thus, the ego feels stable when reduction, definition, and rationality can accurately describe a situation. When these cannot, as when the ego becomes enmeshed in unconscious dynamics, the ego experiences instability. ”
Symbols as Transformers: at this point, Van Eenwyk (1997, p. 69) turns again to insights offered by Carl Jung and his analytic psychology colleagues:
“According to analytical psychology, a symbol’s ability to take the ego from consciousness to the unconscious and back again is its most important function. By doing so, said Jung, “Symbols act as transformers, their function being to convert libido from a ‘lower’ into a ‘higher’ form.” [Jung, Symbols of transformation, CW 5. Par 344] Chaotic dynamics do the same thing. In fact, chaos theory itself functions like a symbol in the domain of science: it transforms perspectives and unlocks domains of inquiry previously thought to be inaccessible.”
It is at this point that Van Eenwyck begins to link chaos theory to symbolic processes and to Jung’s descriptions of the tensions and conflicts inherent in inner-psychic processes – a topic to which I will turn shortly.
Archetype
While nothingness and the Void are represented symbolically in many ways, there is an even more powerful and deeply embedded vehicle for representing these conditions. This vehicle is the archetype, which Jung presents as a dominant feature of the human unconscious (Jung, 1978). While the Jungian archetype is usually portrayed as a specific character (such as a witch or warrior) or as a natural element (such as wind or fire), this, according to Van Eenwyk, is not an accurate portrayal.
Frame of Reference: the archetype is much bigger than any specific representation. Van Eenwyk proposes that the archetype is a broad frame of reference that can be represented in many ways in our unconscious life. From this perspective, the archetype might be considered a psychic strange attractor. A feminine/nurturing archetype, for instance, might be represented as an “earth mother,” a warm, embracing wind, or a den where a fire in the fireplace is gently warming the room, and a heavily cushioned couch provides comfort to the weary traveler.
